SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

2000 Supreme(Guj) 653

H.H.MEHTA
NAYAK PRAHLADBHAI BHOGILAL – Appellant
Versus
STATE – Respondent


Advocates Appeared: D.P.Joshi, D.PANDEY, P.K.JANIKIRAN

H. H. MEHTA, J.

( 1 ) THIS is a Criminal Revision Application under Sec. 401 read with Sec. 397 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (for short "cr. P. C.), filed by the original accused of Criminal case, Chief Case No. 35 of 1985 pending on the file of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mahesana (who will be referred to hereinafter as the "learned Magistrate" for the sake of convenience, challenging the correctness, legality and propriety of Judgment Ex. 9 rendered by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Mahesana (who will be referred to hereinafter as "learned Appellate Judge" for the sake of convenience in Criminal Appeal No. 5 of 1990 on 20th April, 1990, whereby the learned Appellate Judge was pleased to confirm the judgment Exh. 49 and order of conviction and sentence rendered by the learned Magistrate on 26th December, 1989 in Chief Case No. 35 of 1985. The learned Magistrate convicted the accused for an offence punishable under Sec. 408 of Indian Penal Code (for short "i. P. Code") and sentenced to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000. 00, I/d to further undergo Simple Imprisonment for six months. Here in this Criminal Revision Appli



























Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top